Channeling Michael Information
More Than Once(An expanded excerpt from The Journey of Your Soul)

BY SHEPHERD
HOODWIN

Occasionally, when someone has received conflicting information from more than
one channel, I am called upon to do Michael Reading chart "doctoring" to try to
help determine what information is correct. Before asking Michael to check the
akashic records, we do extensive self-validation. First, I may
ask the client exactly what Michael had said through the other channels, and in
what context. For example, if Michael said, "You look like you're about sixth-
or seventh-level mature" or "You look like a sage with a priest essence twin,"
Michael obviously wasn't committing to the information. They were probably
reading his aura, perhaps in a group where it was hard to be certain, since
auras can blend together in a group, or from a photograph during a telephone
session, since reading photographs or a person's aura long-distance gives less
information than reading the aura of a person who is physically present (if
aura-reading is how Michael through that channel
obtains their information). On the other hand, if they said something with
certainty in an in-person private session, it carries more weight. If the
information had been given from the akashic records, it carries more weight
still. I also go into further detail with the client about what the different
roles, overleaves, etc., actually mean so that he can explore which are most
true of his life, and I attempt to guess what is probably correct, based on my
observations, as well. Only then do I ask Michael to give the information again;
they usually confirm most of our conclusions, but they may not. If they don't,
that could lead to more questions.

In my experience, the first information given is usually the most accurate
if it comes through a channel who is clear and skilled in that kind of
material, under favorable conditions. I am very careful to channel charts
only when my physical energy is strong, with no fatigue or headaches. If the
circumstances of a channeling are not ideal, such as in conditions of stress
or distraction (in either the channel or client), mistakes are more likely.
Therefore, as part of self-validation, it can be valuable to consider what
was going on each time information was given. If the information was
incorrect the first time, the chances of it being correct the second time
increase.

When subsequent channelings are largely identical (which occurs in a
minority of instances), it is probable that the person's chart is pretty
obvious, without a lot of cross-currents (overleaves that pull in different
directions, such as a server in dominance, or an artisan with a king essence
twin), and/or essence may have set it up to make sure the information came
through accurately more than once because the person needed that experience.
Conversely, a channel-shopper may get widely differing versions of her
overleaves because essence wants her to really learn the teachings and
self-validate. Still, she would be wise to examine the circumstances of the
first channelings, as outlined above.

Even when channeled Michael teachings information is incorrect, it is still
often plausible or has a logic to it. Consequently, it can be messy to sort
out just what is correct, and self-validation can require delving more
deeply. Even if a person is sure that certain information was incorrect, it
can be worthwhile to examine it to see why it came up--it may convey
something about what's happening in the client's life, even if it's not the
correct Michael information. For example, once, not knowing that the
information had already been given, I incorrectly channeled an artisan with
a scholar essence twin as being a scholar. She said that friends had told
her that she had been looking more scholarly lately. The incorrect
information gave her a clue that she was drawing in more of her essence twin
energy. (If our essence twin, or twin soul, has a different role, qualities
of that role tend to "bleed through" our own, especially when the essence
twin is discarnate.)

It is always possible to rationalize wrong information, to find reasons it
is correct, just as it is possible to find reasons correct information is
wrong. This is especially true when our understanding of what the
information really means is not highly developed. For example, if I were new
to the Michael teachings and someone told me that I am a king, I could
"validate" that by noting that I am sometimes a perfectionist and am a good
organizer, as many kings are. I could also "validate" priest because I tend
to be compassionate, and artisan because I am somewhat creative. And so
forth. (One long-time Michael student swore I was a server because he saw me
as being nurturing.) This is all what I refer to as "circumstantial
evidence." However, if I gained a deep working understanding of the roles, I
would be able to see beyond the surface and eventually, at least, perceive
what is actually true, which is that I am a sage, and that, in fact, I look
and feel nothing like a king (and not much like a priest, artisan, or
server, either).

There is no real harm in having incorrect Michael information--working to
stay in the positive pole of priest, compassion, and out of the negative
pole, zeal, is certainly a worthwhile endeavor for anyone. However, the
correct information will ultimately be far more powerful and
profound--recognizing my sagely oration and working for true expression can
have far more impact on my life. In the end, correct information rings more
true and deep, and incorrect information doesn't quite fit. Still, correct
information may not seem right if we don't fully understand what it means or
what its limitations are. For example, if a person assumes that all servers
like to take care of other people, and he doesn't, he may assume that he
could not be a server. Or if someone has a goal of submission but is bossy
at times (which could be explained by an occasional sliding to dominance,
aggression or power mode, being a king or warrior, or any other number of
factors), others might assume that submission couldn't be correct, not
recognizing that the goal isn't about behaviors per se but about what
motivates a person.

Of all the Michael chart traits, there is by far the most misunderstanding
and emotional charge about soul age. People who have read some of the
Michael books before having a chart done are often unhappy with the soul age
channeled. More often, they think it's too low, but sometimes it's higher
than what they expected and they interpret that as being pressure to live
up to a standard of spiritual advancement they don't have. Soul age, in
fact, is not about spiritual advancement, but simply about the focus of
one's lessons. It is much more minor than usually thought.

I have discussed at length with Michael why Michael information is often
inaccurate after the first time people ask for it. They explained that
asking for specific information forms a sort of electrical circuit between
the asker and the information, with the channel and channeled source as
go-betweens. (They called this a "structural willingness to receive.") That
circuit is strongest the first time the information is requested because
there is an intrinsic need for the information--it hasn't been given before.
The circuit is weaker subsequently if there is no organic need for the
information to be given again. Because of that, other influences can impinge
more strongly than they otherwise would. That is not to say that the
information will definitely be incorrect, but the chances grow.

One such possible impinging influence is the psychic projection of the
person asking when he has a strong investment in certain information being
correct. For example, if, from reading one of the Michael books, he is
certain he is a sage, or very much hopes that he is, he may project that.
The projection can appear to be the reality if it is strong enough, and can
obscure the actual fact even for Michael when the circuit to receive the
true information is weakened. Another influence that can obscure correct
information is an aura that looks different than it usually does. For
instance, a priest whose energy is scattered and who lacks a sense of higher
purpose may resemble the other high-frequency role, artisan; artisans' auras
are naturally diffuse. A third influence might come when a person has more
than one essence sharing his body, or is working intimately with another
essence, such as his essence twin, a guide, or even another person; Michael
might inadvertently read the information for an essence other than the
primary "lease-holder."

This is true regardless of who the channel is each time or who asks for the
information. If someone else had had my chart channeled without telling me,
and then I also have it channeled, the circuit is still weaker the second
time. I may have a genuine need and desire for the information, but not a
"structural" or organic need, since the information is, at least
theoretically, available to me on the physical plane. It doesnąt seem fair,
but it does appear to work that way. Michael through me strongly encouraged
a sharing of information in order to avoid such problems. This is part of
being a good steward of what Michael gives us.

The problem of getting information more than once is not unique to the
Michael teachings. It is often said that one's first intuition is the most
accurate, even in mundane situations such as taking a multiple choice test.
If you doubt your intuition and ask within again, what arises tends to be
less certain and clear. When working with tarot cards about a particular
problem, the first card drawn is usually the most apropos; if you keep
drawing cards about the same problem, the waters become muddied, so to
speak. Perhaps this reflects in part that the universe operates with an
economy of effort: why ask for information twice when once will do?

A process of self-validation, like the one I outlined relative to Michael
Reading chart "doctoring," can strengthen the circuit: after going through
the process, there may now be an "organically" valid reason for the
information to be given again, since what was first given was taken
advantage of fully. An appropriate way to ask Michael again for the
information would be something like this: "Such-and-such information was
channeled for me. It doesn't seem right, for this reason. Could you please
double-check it?"

Michael also told me that Michael students have made an agreement with
Michael on an essence level to be good stewards of the information Michael
gives, and not to ask unnecessarily for the same material to be looked up
more than once.

MICHAEL: "The informational part of the teachings is a means to an end.
We're really concerned with advancing growth, not with being a cosmic
librarian."

Reconciling discrepancies teaches much about distinctions in the Michael
system. For example, if a person is channeled as being second-level old on
one occasion, and seventh-level mature on another, it can be quite
educational to study the differences between those soul ages and try to
determine which one is more true of him. Discrepancies can also help keep
channels and clients on their toes, so that no one assumes that a particular
channel is infallible. Someone who needs lessons in self-validation, who
perhaps has a desire to believe in the infallibility of a particular
channel, or who tends to just accept whatever is given without engaging with
it and considering it, is more likely to attract inaccurate information when
the "structural willingness to receive" is weakened.

Some other channels I have spoken with confirm the difficulty in channeling
Michael information more than once, and in "More Messages from Michael," the
channels discussed how they "block" information if someone has already
channeled it, even if they didn't know that. On the few occasions when I was
unknowingly the second one to channel a person's Michael chart, or forgot
that I had already channeled a chart and did it a second time, I did not
"block"--the information flowed normally. Only once or twice did something
seem "fishy." The charts were usually plausible, at least on the surface.
However, I later discovered that most of the repeated material was wrong.

An acquaintance of mine went to four Michael channels when visiting northern
California, and asked them all for his Michael information (which I had
already given him). We now refer to this as "overleaves shopping" or
"channel shopping," usually meaning going to different channels until you
get the chart you want, although he was doing it more as a test. He didn't
tell them he had already asked other channels, and didn't realize the
problems involved in doing this. He thought that if the channels were
"pure," he'd get identical information each time. That didn't happen, and he
felt that indicated that the channels were "editing" the material. Actually,
the results were fairly similar, since the information was being read from
his aura in person, and some of it, such as his role and soul age, was
pretty clear-cut. However, there were some differences in soul-age level and
overleaves. Part of the problem, in addition to the weakened circuit, was
that he didn't tell the channels that the information had already been
channeled. Although his intent was not malicious, there was a lack of
openness in that. I can understand his wish to try to validate a channel's
accuracy is a "scientific" method, but when information is withheld, the
session becomes more about "testing" the channel than about fully
participating. Channeling is a delicate process that requires a complete
investment by both the client and channel, including total good-faith
cooperation and honesty, without any holding back. Telling Michael what was
channeled previously can help them avoid inaccuracies. It alerts them that
the circuit was probably weakened, and they can explore what was channeled
previously to see if it has "roots" all the way back to the core of the
person and shows up in his akashic records, or if it is merely somehow part
of his appearance. That said, some channels do not want to know what was
previously given, and that should be respected.

At a 1996 conference of sixteen Michael channels, including Sarah Chambers,
in La Veta, Colorado, there was widespread agreement that "overleaves
shopping" is generally not a good idea. However, the idea that channeling
Michael chart information more than once is problematic remains
controversial. To some, it looks like a cop-out, a rationalization for bad
channeling. All I can say is that my experience has repeatedly borne it out:
when my charts are the first, they tend to be validated over time; when
they're not, they tend to be less accurate unless the client has diligently
worked with all the information previously given and presents me with it
along a summary of her validation of it; in that case, we usually get a
clean chart.

The Yarbro channels regard other Michael channels as not being valid.
Occasionally, I've heard about people who'd already had their charts
channeled later receiving information from a Yarbro channel that seemed
wildly off-base, despite the Yarbro reputation for accuracy. Even if they're
careful about not duplicating efforts among themselves, they have no qualms
about duplicating channeling by others because they assume that they are the
only accurate ones. Any channel who glibly repeats channeling without
caution and simply assumes that she or he is correct is treading on thin
ice.

Channeling specific Michael information more than once is different from
asking more than one channel or psychic what he picks up about, say, your
health or a relationship, because with a general question, there are always
more "pieces of the puzzle" that can be given, helping fill in the whole
picture--there is more than one correct answer available (unlike you role,
for example; although there are secondary influences from other roles, you
only have one actual true role). Michael information such as your true play
or life task are also items that tend to have several parts and can be
accurately depicted in a number of ways, so they can be asked about more
than once with less diminishment. Still, if a channeled entity or psychic
told me something specific about my health and I questioned its accuracy, I
might check it with another source, but I would offer to tell him what had
been said previously. Again, some (especially psychics, in this case) may
not want to know, but I would at least give him the option.

If someone requests a chart on a famous or historical person, I often first
consult the database at michaelteachings.com and the book "Celebrities--The
Complete Michael Database" by Emily Baumbach. It has a list of Michael
information on about twelve hundred well-known figures, culled from the work
of many channels. What I get may disagree, but the list provides a starting
point. In fact, when Emily compiled the list, there were sometimes
discrepancies among some of the contributing channels, and once in a while
one channel got different information at different times. Emily, who also
channels Michael, chose the information that felt most right to her at the
time, and later changed her mind in some instances. Although it can be
difficult to validate Michael information on people we do not personally
know, we still have to decide for ourselves whether, for example,
Shakespeare was a sage or a scholar, or whether Shirley MacLaine is an
artisan, priest, or sage. (I channeled that Shakespeare was a scholar,
confirming Yarbro, with scholar essence twin, to my surprise, and that
Shirley MacLaine is a sage with a priest essence twin. To me, MacLaine is a
stereotypical sage, but some Michael students are convinced she's a priest
because of her metaphysical writings.) Even when a channel is the first to
ask for information on a particular celebrity, if Michael is reading it
psychically, the lack of direct personal contact can interfere with the
results. Not only is reading someone psychically without direct contact more
difficult than in person, but a celebrity's media personality isn't
necessarily genuine, and that can alter the way his energy looks.

Although Emily's book is an invaluable reference, Emily doesn't give us
alternate channelings or who channeled information on someone first.
Furthermore, there is no way to know if channels she didn't work with
received information first on someone listed there, or if Michael
information has already been channeled on those not listed. Michael has
suggested to me that I check with other channels before channeling a chart
on a celebrity or historical figure, but that isn't always practical, and I
don't want to impose on other people's time.

There have been a few instances when a client has asked for someone's chart,
and Michael has not been able to get the information because the essence of
the prospective chart subject didn't want it to be given. In each case, the
client told me afterward that the subject was intensely private or guarded.
In general, a person's Michael information is a matter of public
record--like a person's face--and asking for someone else's chart is usually
not considered an invasion of his privacy. There is nothing on it that is
either good or bad; it is all neutral, and there is nothing on it that could
be used against a person. On the contrary, a chart can only help the cause
of greater understanding. However, if an essence doesn't want it given out,
it won't be, just as if a person doesn't want his face to be seen, he can
keep it hidden.

Shepherd is a professional
Michael channel and author of The Journey of Your Soul--A Channel Explores
Channeling and the Michael Teachings and Loving from Your Soul--Creating
Powerful Relationships. He does channeling sessions and intuitive readings
via telephone, mail, and e-mail. Audio cassettes are available from his site. Visit
his website at
Summerjoy Press